no, the bit about having no money was a response to a claim that the advice was 'actionable' and i pointed out a situation where in believed it was not actionable dute to practical financial constraints.
however, my statement about entitlements of the performer being non existant along with the listener having no obligation to pay the performer because they stayed for some amount of time, was made on an moral level. i also believe it is a morally 'good' thing to compensate the performer if they provide you with entertainment, i just do not believe there is any obligation placed on you to do this by the performer. like you say, it is for me alone as the listener to decide. i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
true. but, it could also mean they are demonstrating traits that make them a more desirable candidate!
for example, if they have recently made the decision to stop smoking cigarettes, thereby making a positive change in their lifestyle and health, this shows strength of character. it also demonstrates their ability to question past poor decisions rather than give in to the sunk cost fallacy, and then take steps to correct them. and of course, it also tends to make you put on weight [0] ... although not much more that 10 lb or 5 kg it seems, so interviewer beware, i guess ;)
i guess, and intent is important as a factor, at least somewhat mitigating. teaching that actions have consequences based on their outcome, nom matter how well intentioned, is important though, as is the lesson that life is unfair, or at least does not care about what you wanted or intended to happen ;)
i think i actually have a similar problem about asccusations of lying that often get thrown around in arguments etc. when the peoson accused has simply made an error in good faith...
> If you stop to listen to a musician or street performer for more than a minute, you owe them a dollar
if i am a child, with no money, or am un- or underemployed with very little money in the form of disposable income, then this advice is not actually actionable.
not to mention that it is also wrong - you do not owe the street performer anything, no matter how long you stop and listen for. they are not entitled to anything just because they made a choice to perform in a public place. and this is not to suggest i have never, or will not in future, donate to buskers etc. - but it is always an active choice...
i find it incredibly hard to believe that you "didn't ever do anything wrong on purpose" since you disclosed the fact that you were once a child. are you perhaps meaning something along the lines of "didn't ever think that things i did on purpose were wrong" instead? the thing that upset you when you were punished would then be that your definition of wrongness was different to that of the person punishing you?
most kids want a combination of 1.) approval from parent(s) and 2.) stuff that makes them happy and when 2 conflicts with 1 there can be issues, and it is a rare child that seeks only approval from their parents in all circumstances, as you also point out.
And the wake word detection is done offline, as can be easily proven by disconnecting your internet and saying 'Alexa report this conversation to the NSA' - she will wake up, but then blink red due to lack of network connectivity.
Well, Rolex PR department didn't invite the blog to tour their factories just because they were feeling generous that week. However it's difficult to write about things that people want to buy without advertising them, in some sense of the word; and even more difficult if the things are just made by one company, as is often the case with collectibles. Similarly, an article on Jaguar cars would be no less interesting if Jaguar provided the author a tour of their assembly line, but if skillfully written, can still be journalism rather than pure advertising.
Not sure about point 3. Normally mortgage costs do increase - in line with interest rates. Even with a fixed-rate mortgage, there is usually a term for that rate, which is generally substantially less than the lifetime of the mortgage, often as little as two years, and rarely more than five. This is certainly the situation in the UK, do things work differently in the US?
London is interesting, in that the square mile (financial district) while being very busy (even at night) during the week, due to workers drinking and socialising after office hours, is absolutely empty at weekends. On Sundays the streets are absolutely deserted, which makes it a great time to film apocalyptic zombie movies - see '28 Days Later' for an example.
No, I think they really don't fully understand the technical implications of the policies, so they implement what the majority of the public says they want (protection from terrorists, paedopholes and so on) without worrying about implications that only a minority say they care about. Perhaps with better science and technology advice they would choose differently?
I really don't think that this is an instance of Milliband trying to "protect his power" by allowing GCHQ to surveil the Internet...
It's a bit of a leap from those statements to "takes policy direction from [...] television dramas he watches" though.
I think the Telegraph is being intellectually dishonest. Cameron was using the TV shows as an easily understandable and relatable-to example of what the policies he is promoting involve, not the other way around.
however, my statement about entitlements of the performer being non existant along with the listener having no obligation to pay the performer because they stayed for some amount of time, was made on an moral level. i also believe it is a morally 'good' thing to compensate the performer if they provide you with entertainment, i just do not believe there is any obligation placed on you to do this by the performer. like you say, it is for me alone as the listener to decide. i objected to the use of the word 'owe' in the advice, basically.
hopefully that's a bit clearer...